Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Jurnal Notariil, Vol. 7, No. 1, May 2022, 39-45 P ISSN 2540 - 797X
Available Online at https://ejournal.warmadewa.ac.id/index.php/notariil E ISSN 2615 - 1545
JURIDICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION NUMBER: 121 K/TUN/2017 ON DISCLOSURE OF
DATA INFORMATION OF THE HOLDER RIGHT TO CULTIVATE
I Gede Cahya Widiangga*, I Wayan Wesna Astara and I Nyoman Alit Puspadma
Master of Notary, Universitas Warmadewa , Denpasar, Bali-Indonesia
*widianggacahya@gmail.com
Abstract
The legal construction of Articles 187 and 191 of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs Number 3 of 1997
and Article 12 paragraph (4) letter i of the Perka BPN excludes HGU documents as documents that
are not accessible to the public and can only be given to government agencies.This study aims to
examine regulation of information transparency on the data of the holder of the Right to Cultivate
and to examine the legal consequences of not implementing the Supreme Court's Decision Number:
121 K/TUN/2017 by the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency
(ATR/BPN) which has permanent legal force. This study uses a normative juridical method according
to the applicable law. The results of this study revealed that Transparency of information on data on
holders of the Right to Cultivate refers to Article 2 paragraph (1) of Government Regulation Number
24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration (hereinafter referred to as PP No. 24 of 1997) which
stipulates that public information is open and accessible to every user of public information. The
Right to Cultivate Documents are not exempt under Article 17 letters b and h of the KIP Law.
Furthermore, the legal consequences of not implementing the Supreme Court's decision Number:
121 K/TUN/2017, namely the cassation respondent may be subject to administrative sanctions in
accordance with Article 116 of the Administrative Court Law and criminal sanctions in accordance
with Article 52 of the KIP Law.
Keywords: public i n form ati o n disclosu r e; r i g h t to cultiv a te ; su p rem e court dec i s i on
1. INTRODUCTION
Right to Cultivate (
HGU
) is legally
regulated in Article 28 and Article 29 of
Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic
Agrarian Principles (hereinafter referred to
as
UUPA
) (BPK, 2004) in conjunction with
Article 19 to Article 32 of Government
Regulation Number 18 of 2021
(hereinafter referred to as PP 18 of 2021)
(Tanah & Susun, 2021). Related to land
information, especially information on data
on
HGU
holders, there are rules that
restrict people from accessing land data
based on Article 187 and Article 191
Regulation of the Minister of State for
Agrarian Affairs/Head of the National Land
Agency No. 3 of 1997 concerning the
provisions of the Implementing Regulation
of Government Regulation no. 24 of 1997
concerning Land Registration (hereinafter
referred to as
Permen Agraria
No. 3 of
1997) (Nasional, 1997). Article 187 of the
Minister of Agrarian Affairs No. 3 of 1997
states that information on physical and
juridical data is open to the public and can
be provided to interested parties.
Furthermore, Article 191 of the Minister of
Agrarian Affairs No. 3 of 1997 states that
the data is only provided to Government
Agencies that require it.
Another problem arose with the
issuance of Regulation of the Head of the
National Land Agency of the Republic of
Indonesia (
Perka BPN
) No. 6 of 2013
concerning Public Information Services
within the National Land Agency of the
Republic of Indonesia. The provisions of
Article 12 paragraph (4) letter I state that
information on land books, documents,
and documents are excluded information.
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
How To Cite:
Widiangga, I. G. C., Astara, I. W. W., & Puspadma, I. N. A. (2022). Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's
Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of The Holder Right To Cultivate.
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1), 39-45, Doi: https://doi.org/10.22225/jn.7.1.2022.39-45
The existence of a lawsuit by Forest Watch
Indonesia (FWI) as the applicant against
the Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial
Planning/National Land Agency of the
Republic of Indonesia as the respondent,
related to the request for data on the
HGU
holder because the respondent did not
respond to the request for information.
The lawsuit has received a decision from
the Information Commission Center with
decision No. 057/XII/KIP-PS-MA/2015
which was won by FWI, with a decision
stating that the information requested by
the applicant is in the form of a List of Oil
Palm Plantation Rights (
HGU
) Documents
as open public information and ordered
the respondent to provide the information
as intended to the applicant since this
decision has permanent legal force
(
inkracht van gewijsde
).”
The Ministry of Agrarian Affairs then
filed an appeal, cassation, and judicial
review (
PK
), but again FWI won by
strengthening the previous decision. The
decision states that administrative
documents related to
HGU
do not include
information that is exempt from being
provided to the public as referred to in
Article 11 paragraph (1) letter c of the KIP
Law. Until the decision of the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 121
K/TUN/2017 and judicial review decision
No. 61 PK/TUN/KI/2020 until now has not
been implemented.
A study conducted by Winata & Sinaga
(2019) that examined the contradicton
between the Government policy and
Supreme Court decision, and the
transparency of Cultivation Rights
informaton can promotes land
redistributon based on constitutional rights
to obtain informaton mentioned that there
is contradicton and deviaton to Central
Broadcastng Commission Decision No.
057/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2015, Administratve
Court Decision No. 2/G/KI/2016/PTUN-
JKT, and Supreme Court Decision No. 121
K/TUN/2017 through actons of the Ministry
of Agrarian Afairs and Spatal Planning,
also the Circular Leter of the Coordinatng
Ministry for Economic Afairs
No.TAN.03.01/265/ D.II.M.EKON/05/2019
which excludes informaton about
Cultvaton Rights as public informaton.
Then, access to public informaton must
take precedence over the right to privacy
of personal informaton based on the
guarantee of consttutonal rights under
Artcle 28 F of the 1945 Consttuton as the
enforcement of the rule of law, demoratc
state, good governance, and public
partcipaton principle. In additon,
transparency is Government’s
responsibility, while at the same tme
avoiding misuse of authority. For this
reason, transparency of Cultvaton Rights
can promotes land redistributon in order to
realize agrarian reform. Meanwhile, a
result study conducted by Fajri &
Susilowati (2021) about whether the
application of Perka BPN article 12
paragraph (4) letter i can be justified
according to UU KIP article 17 letter j or
not to understand the legal consequences
that arise regarding the prohibition of land
information that cannot be accessed by
users of information or the public, revealed
that the implementation of the Perka BPN
regarding land use rights information are
not in line with the elements contained in
the UU KIP. The UU KIP states that
information must be in the form of a law.
However, the land use program does not
use the law as the basis for the
assessment, but uses the BPN Regulation.
The existence of several decisions from
the Supreme Court regarding the
disclosure of land use rights information is
also the basis for why land use rights
information must be disclosed.
Based on the background and the
previous studies above, this study aims to
examine regulation of information
transparency on the data of the holder of
the Right to Cultivate and to examine the
legal consequences of not implementing
the Supreme Court's Decision Number:
121 K/TUN/2017 by the Ministry of
Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/
National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) which
has permanent legal force.
2. METHOD
The research method used is normative
juridical, namely research based on
statutory regulations or binding legal
norms that are relevant to the material
discussed. The approach used in this
research is a statute approach, conceptual
approach and case approach. The statute
approach is an approach that is based on
the provisions of the applicable legislation
and its relation to the issues discussed.
The conceptual approach is an approach
based on the opinions of scholars who
understand the issues being discussed.
Case approaches are approach by
approaching cases related to the issues at
hand, in which case there has been a court
decision that has permanent legal force.
The legal materials used are primary legal
materials and secondary legal materials.
Primary legal materials are binding legal
materials consisting of applicable laws and
Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of
The Holder Right To Cultivate
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1) 2022, 40
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
regulations and other regulations that
support research, while secondary legal
materials are legal materials in the form of
literature books, scientific notes, scientific
works and various applicable print media.
and is related to the issue under
discussion. The technique of collecting
legal materials is by means of library
research, namely through library research
in the form of determining secondary data
sources, identifying secondary data by
quoting or recording and then analyzing
the legal materials obtained in order to
determine relevance to the problem
formulation
HGU
holders. Legal certainty is
a guarantee that the law is enforced to
defend rights and that decisions must be
enforced. Legal certainty and demands are
met by being prosecuted and subject to
legal sanctions as well. The importance of
legal certainty theory in law enforcement
against court decisions that have legal
force to create justice for the parties.
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Regulation of Information
Transparency of Holder's Data The
Right to Cultivate
Transparency or openness of public
information is one of the crucial things in a
good government. One of the issues
regarding the disclosure of public
information is the disclosure of land data
information. Based on a statement from
the Central Information Commission which
explained that there were forty-one lists of
land disputes in the registration book from
2012 to 2015, the number of agrarian
problems included eight disputes involving
the National Land Agency of the Republic
of Indonesia, four disputes involving the
Regional Land Office, as well as twenty-
nine disputes involving the Regency or City
Land Offices (Publik et al., 2016). Some of
these requests for dispute resolution to the
information commission arise because the
land agency excludes information so that
information cannot be accessed by several
parties, one of which is the applicant,
namely FWI.
This is because based on the Agrarian
Regulation No. 3 of 1997 where Article 187
states that:
"Information regarding physical and
juridical data on land registration maps,
land registers, measuring documents and
land books, is open to the public and can
be provided to interested parties visually
or in writing, but the provision is in the
form of a Land Registration Certificate"
Based on the article described above
which is often interpreted that land
information can only be provided to
interested parties, namely government
agencies in accordance with Article 191 of
the Minister of Agrarian Affairs No. 3 of
1997. The problem was again caused by
the issuance of Perka BPN Number 6 of
2013 precisely in Article 12 paragraph (4)
letter i where it was explained that
information on land books, certificates of
measurement, and certificates were
excluded information. On the other hand,
similar regulatory issues are also contained
in Article 34 paragraph (1) PP No. 24 of
1997 states everyone with an interest has
the right to know physical data and land
juridical data, but Article 34 Paragraph (2)
PP No. 24 of 1997 states, Physical data
and juridical data are only open to
government agencies. While in Article 2 PP
No. 24 of 1997 states that the
implementation of land registration is
based on the open principle. The principle
of openness, meaning that through the
implementation of land registration, both
the community and the government who
wish to obtain information on physical data
and juridical data will be able to obtain
correct data at any time at the land office
(Harsono, 2008).
It can be seen that there is disharmony
of norms between paragraphs 1 and 2 in
Article 34 of PP Number 24 of 1997 as well
as in Article 187 and Article 191 of the
Agrarian Regulation Number 3 of 1997,
therefore there is no guarantee of legal
certainty in these paragraphs and articles.
Jan Michiel Otto defines legal certainty as
the possibility that in certain situations
clear, consistent and accessible rules are
available, issued by and recognized by the
state, government agencies apply these
legal rules consistently and are also
subject to and obedient. to him, citizens in
principle adjust their behavior to these
rules (in Shidarta, 2006). There is a
conflict of vertical norms between PP No.
24/1997 on Article 2 and the implementing
regulations, namely Permen Agraria No. 3
of 1997 on Article 191 and
Perka BPN
Number 6 of 2013 on Article 12 paragraph
(4) letter i. According to Hans Kelsen, in
his book “Allgemeine der Normen” defines
norm conflict:
"Conflict between two norms occurs
when what is ordered in the provisions of
one norm and what is ordered in the
provisions of another norm is not
compatible/incompatible so that complying
with or implementing one of these norms
will inevitably or may cause a violation of
Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of
The Holder Right To Cultivate
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1) 2022, 41
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
other norms (Irfani, 2020).”
The conflict of norms mentioned above,
creates a legal uncertainty, because the
rules are not in line with each other. Legal
certainty contains 2 (two) meanings,
namely, first, there are general rules that
make individuals know what actions may
or may not be done and the second is
security. Law for individuals from
government arbitrariness because with the
existence of general legal rules, individuals
can know what the state may charge or do
to individuals (Marzuki, 2005). In dealing
with conflicts between legal norms (legal
antinomy), then use the principles of
conflict resolution or the so-called principle
of preference, namely lex superiori
derogate legi inferiori, lex specialis
derogate legi generalis, and lex posteriori
derogate legi priori (Suriyani, 2016). The
problem of vertical conflict between
Government Regulation Number 24 of
1997 in Article 2 and the Minister of
Agrarian Affairs Number 3 of 1997 in
Article 191 and Perka BPN Number 6 of
2013 in Article 12 paragraph (4) letter I, is
to use the principle of lex superiori
derogate legi inferiori. The higher
legislation, namely PP No. 24/1997
overrides the lower-level legislation,
namely Permen Agraria No. 3/1997 and
Perka BPN
No. 6/2013.
In Government Regulation Number 61
of 2010 concerning the Implementation of
Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public
Information Disclosure, as the
implementing regulation of the UU KIP,
there is no explicit information found
regarding land, therefore there is a gap in
norms related to this matter. From this
analysis, that land information is not
absolute information that can be
categorized as open or excluded before
further examining aspects or issues that
often accompany land issues. However, if
it is traced based on the obligations of the
HGU holder, then the implementation and
realization of obligations will be closely
related to the public interest, so it is not
appropriate to say that the data and
information on the HGU document are
excluded information. This can be seen
from the HGU granted to Indonesian
citizens and legal entities that must meet
certain requirements based on Article 27
PP No. 18 Year 2021.
Regarding the dispute between FWI
and the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs, it can
be understood that Article 11 paragraph
(1) letter a of the UU KIP is one of the
obligations of the Public Agency to provide
information that is under its control, but
does not include information that is
excluded, while in paragraph (2) stipulates
that public information that has been
declared open based on objection and/or
dispute resolution efforts is declared as
public information that can be accessed by
users of public information. In this case,
public information that is excluded can
become non-exempt for public access.
Article 17 of the UU KIP regulates
information that is exempt from open
access for applicants for public
information. Article 17 letter b of the UU
KIP regulates the exclusion of information
that interferes with the protection of
intellectual property rights and the
protection of unfair business competition.
Furthermore, Article 17 letters d, e, and f
of the KIP Law regulate the exclusion of
information in the investment and
economic fields, while Article 17 letters g,
and h of the KIP Law regulates the
exclusion of information against personal
secrets. With regard to the exclusion of
public information, there are arrangements
that allow information to be opened/
accessed based on Article 18 of the UU
KIP.
Article 18 paragraph (1) letter g of the
KIP Law stipulates that other information
as referred to in Article 11 paragraph (2)
does not include exempt information.
Public information that is excluded, can be
made public through objection and/or
dispute resolution mechanisms. In this
case there is a contradiction in Article 17
letter b with Article 18 paragraph (1) letter
g of the UU KIP, but this can be resolved
by making an effort to file a lawsuit to the
court.
The exclusion of limited public
information is based on the law, propriety,
and public interest and is based on testing
the consequences based on Article 2
paragraph (1) and paragraph (4) of the UU
KIP. In addition to these considerations,
Article 17 letters b and h of the KIP Law
regulates related to unfair business
competition and may reveal personal
secrets. For this matter, related to the
definition of HGU in Article 28 of the LoGA
and legal subjects based on Article 30 of
the LoGA, the document that FWI wants is
the policy domain of the Ministry of
Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/
National Land Agency of the Republic of
Indonesia based on the Regulation of the
Minister of Agrarian Affairs Number 3 of
1999 concerning Delegation of Authority
Granting and Cancellation of Decisions on
the Granting of Land Rights.
Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of
The Holder Right To Cultivate
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1) 2022, 42
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
The granting of HGU permits is given in
the form of land certificates based on
Article 19 paragraph (2) of the UUPA, so
that if you pay attention to the definition
of Article 1 paragraph 2 of the KIP Law
and the provisions of Article 11 paragraph
(1) letter c of the KIP Law, the reason for
causing unfair business competition is
based on Article 17 letter b and Article 17
letter h of the KIP Law, which states that
they can disclose personal secrets
regarding a person's financial condition,
assets, income, and bank accounts, are
not appropriate because they do not
contain information containing business
plans, business practices, and business
agreements of HGU license holders, so
that information regarding the name of the
HGU permit holder is public information.
Legal due to The Not Implementation
of The Supreme Court's Decision
Number: 121 K/TUN/2017 by The
Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial
Planning/National Land Agency
(ATR/BPN) that has Permanent Law
Power
The word "execution" comes from the
word "executie" which means carrying out
the judge's decision (uitvoer leggig van
vonnissen). Execution is to enforce court
decisions with the help of legal force, in
order to carry out court decisions that
have been decided and have permanent
legal force (Abdullah, 2005). The practice
of carrying out executions often
encounters obstacles, due to the fact that
the losing party generally finds it difficult
to accept defeat and tends to ignore/reject
decisions. Sometimes the Chief Justice has
to intervene in order to expedite the
execution. Decisions with permanent legal
force can be requested for execution by
the party who won, provided that the
losing party does not voluntarily
implement the contents of the decision in
question. Meanwhile, only decisions with
condemnatoir decisions can be requested,
while declaratory and constitutive
decisions cannot be requested for
execution.
"TUN disputes are disputes that arise in
the TUN field between individuals or civil
legal entities and TUN bodies or officials,
both central and regional, as a result of
the issuance of TUN decisions, including
employment disputes based on applicable
laws."
The basis of the dispute is the Agrarian
Regulation No. 3 of 1997, namely Article
191 and Perka BPN Number 6 of 2013 to
be exact in Article 12 paragraph (4) letter i
which is contrary to the UU KIP and the
principle of Openness in PP. 24 of 1997
relating to the principles of Good
Governance. The object of the dispute is
the object of the TUN dispute based on
Article 1 Number 9 of the Administrative
Court Law which explains that:
"TUN decision is a written
determination issued by a TUN agency or
official based on the applicable regulations
that are concrete, individual, and final
which has legal consequences for a person
or civil legal entity".
Because through the TUN court, the
nature of the TUN Court's decision in this
case uses a condemnatory decision, where
the decision contains a punishment for the
defendant. If it is related to the form of
decision regulated in the Administrative
Court Law, the condemnatory decisions
include: The obligation to revoke
administrative decisions that have been
declared void (Article 97 paragraph (9)
letter a); Obligation to revoke
administrative decisions and issue
replacement decisions (Article 97
paragraph (9) letter b); The obligation to
issue a decision in the event that the
object of dispute is a negative fictitious
decision (Article 97 paragraph (9) letter c);
Obligation to pay compensation (Article 97
paragraph (10)); The obligation to carry
out rehabilitation and pay compensation in
employment disputes (Article 97 paragraph
(11)) (Paulus JJ. Sipayung, 1995).
After the Administrative Court Decision
has permanent legal force, the Plaintiff
together with the Administrative Court can
carry out the execution with the
characteristics of the TUN that the
implementation of the decision is
voluntary. However, the success of the
implementation of the decision is highly
dependent on the authority of the court
and the legal awareness of the officials
(Abdullah, 2005).
Based on this case, the HGU document
is a policy issued by the Cassation
Petitioner, and the granting of a HGU
permit in the form of a certificate is proof
of rights according to Article 19 paragraph
(2) letter c of the BAL. Article 1 number 19
PP 24 of 1997 states that a land book is a
document in the form of a list containing
juridical data and physical data of an
object of registration for which rights are
already in place. In addition, Article 1
number 2 of the KIP Law and Article 11
paragraph (1) letter C of the KIP Law
stipulate that public bodies are required to
Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of
The Holder Right To Cultivate
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1) 2022, 43
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
provide public information which includes
existing policies with supporting
documents. In this case the document
revealing personal data and asset
condition according to Article 17 letter h of
the KIP Law is not appropriate, it can be
justified by the decision of the Supreme
Court Decision Number: 121 K/TUN/2017
because it is in accordance with the
applicable laws and regulations.
In this dispute, there is no clear legal
protection for FWI over differences in the
interpretation of substance regarding
information disclosure and up to the level
of the Supreme Court and also the PK,
FWI has not yet received the right to
obtain information that is in accordance
with the decision. In formulating the
principle of legal protection, Indonesia is
based on Pancasila as the ideology and
philosophy of the state. According to
Philipus M. Hadjon, the principles of the
Pancasila state law are a) The existence of
a legal relationship between the
government and the people based on the
principle of harmony, b) A proportional
functional relationship between state
powers, c) The principle of dispute
resolution by deliberation and the judiciary
is a means of balancing rights and
obligation (Astara, 2018).
Given that the KIP Law is a special
regulation (lex specialis), it emphasizes
that public information is open and
accessible to the entire community, so that
the argument of the Cassation Petitioner
using Article 17 letter b of the KIP Law
cannot be accepted because it has gone
through the objection and/or dispute
resolution mechanism in accordance with
Article 18 paragraph (1) letter g of UU KIP
In this case, based on the decision of the
Supreme Court which affirms the previous
decision and rejects the request for
cassation from the Cassation Petitioner
and punishes the Cassation Petitioner to
pay court fees, the Cassation Respondent
needs to request supervision by the
President by ordering representatives of
the people, namely the DPR so that the
Cassation Petitioner carries out the
decision as it has permanent legal force.
4. CONCLUSION
Based on the results obtained, it can be
concluded that 1) the regulation of
transparency of information on data on
land use rights holders with respect to its
regulation found problems that arose
based on the disharmony of norms in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 34 PP no.
24 of 1997 which states that everyone
with an interest has the right to know
physical data and juridical data on land,
while the next paragraph is only open to
government agencies. 3 of 1997 there is a
disharmony of norms which states that
physical and juridical land data are open to
the public and can be given to interested
parties but article 191 states that it can
only be given to Government Agencies,
therefore there is no guarantee of legal
certainty in it. Regulations on the
transparency of public bodies are
regulated in the UU KIP. The existence of
UU KIP as a form of implementation of the
principle of lex specialist derogate legi
generali. Article 17 of the UU KIP regulates
the exclusion of public information
because it has the potential to cause
dangerous consequences, there is a
contradiction with Article 18 paragraph (1)
letter g of the UU KIP, namely the
category of information that is not
excluded as referred to in Article 11
paragraph (2). The existence of empty
norms related to data transparency of HGU
holders, because the UU KIP and its
implementing regulations do not find
explicit information on land, but if it is
traced based on the obligations of HGU
holders, the implementation and
realization of obligations will be closely
related to the public interest, so it is not
appropriate if the data is and HGU
document information is said to be
excluded information. 2) The legal
consequences of not implementing the
Supreme Court's decision by the Ministry
of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/
National Land Agency of the Republic of
Indonesia, namely FWI together with the
court based on Article 116 point 4 of the
Administrative Court Law may regulate the
official concerned may be subject to forced
money, number 5 of the court's decision
can be published in the media local mass
by the clerk, number 6 the court can ask
the President to force the official
concerned to implement the PTUN decision
and request the DPR to carry out its
supervisory function. In accordance with
the provisions of the PTUN, the official
may be subject to imprisonment for 1 year
or a fine in accordance with Article 52 of
the UU KIP. In this case, the Ministry of
Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/
National Land Agency of the Republic of
Indonesia may be subject to criminal
sanctions, however, prior to that, it is
necessary to revoke the position based on
Article 17 paragraph (2) of the 1945
Constitution. This proves that although it is
Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of
The Holder Right To Cultivate
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1) 2022, 44
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
difficult to implement the rule of law, The
law has provided legal certainty.
REFERENCE
Abdullah, R. (2005).
Hukum Acara Peradilan
Tata Usaha Negara
. Raja Grafindo
Persada.
Astara, I. (2018).
HUKUM KEPAILITAN: TEORI
DAN PRAKTIK
. Warmadewa University
Press.
Bhatia, V. K., & Engberg, J. (2005).
Vagueness
in normative texts
(Vol. 23). Peter Lang.
BPK. (2004). Undang-Undang Pokok Agraria.
Undang-Undang No.5 Tahun 1960
,
1
, 1–5.
dalam Shidarta, L. J. van A. (2006).
Moralitas Profesi Hukum Suatu Tawaran
Kerangka Berfikir.
PT Repika Aditama,
Bandung
.
Fajri, M. F., & Susilowati, I. F. (2021). Analisis
Yuridis Terhadap Informasi Pertanahan
Hak Guna Usaha Yang Dikecualikan Oleh
Publik.
Novum: Jurnal Hukum
, 1–13.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2674/
novum.v0i0.42691
Harsono, B. (2008). Hukum Agraria Indonesia,
Sejarah Pembentukan Undang-undang
Pokok Agraria, Isi dan Pelaksanaannya,
Jilid 1: Hukum Tanah Nasional.
Djambatan, Jakarta
.
Irfani, N. (2020). Asas Lex Superior, Lex
Specialis, dan Lex Pesterior: Pemaknaan,
Problematika, dan Penggunaannya Dalam
Penalaran dan Argumentasi Hukum.
Jurnal
Legislasi Indonesia
,
17
(3), 305–325.
https://e-jurnal.peraturan.go.id/
index.php/jli/article/view/711
Marzuki, P. M. (2005).
Metode Penelitian
Hukum
. Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Nasional, B. P. (1997).
MENTERI NEGARA
AGRARIA/
.
Paulus JJ. Sipayung. (1995).
Mencegah Pejabat
Tata Usaha Negara sebagai Tergugat
dalam PTUN
. Departemen Dalam Negeri.
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia
Nomor 18 Tahun 2021 Tentang Hak
Pengelolaan, Hak Atas Tanah, Satuan
Rumah Susun, Dan Pendaftaran Tanah
(Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Tahun 2021 Nomor 28, Tambahan
Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Nomor 6630)
Peraturan Menteri Negara Agraria/ Kepala
Badan Pertanahan Nasional Nomor 3
Tahun 1997 Tentang Ketentuan
Pelaksanaan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor
24 Tahun 1997 Tentang Pendaftaran
Tanah
Peraturan Menteri Agraria Nomor 3 Tahun
1999 tentang Pelimpahan Kewenangan
Pemberian dan Pembatalan Keputusan
Pemberian Hak Atas Tanah.
Peraturan Kepala Badan Pertanahan Nasional
Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2013
Tentang Pelayanan Informasi Publik di
Lingkungan Badan Pertanahan Nasional
Republik Indonesia
Publik, F. G. D. I., Pertanahan, D., Pusat, K. I.,
Debora, A., Law, E., & Maret, J. (2016).
Status Informasi Pertanahan
. 1–16.
Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Nomor : 61 PK/
TUN/KI/2020
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 121 K/
TUN/2017
Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara
Nomor: 2/G/KL/2016/PTUN-JKT
Putusan Komisi Informasi Pusat Republik
Indonesia Nomor: 057/XII/KIP-PS-M-
A/2015
Sentana, M. R. D. H., Astara, I. W. W., &
Sugiartha, I. N. G. (2020). Peranan Hakim
untuk Mendamaikan Para Pihak yang
Bersengketa dalam Perkara Perdata di
Pengadilan Negeri Denpasar.
Jurnal
Analogi Hukum
,
2
(2), 203–208. https://
doi.org/10.22225/ah.2.2.2020.203-208
Suriyani, M. (2016). Pertentangan Asas
Perundang-undangan dalam Pengaturan
Larangan Mobilisasi Anak pada Kampanye
Pemilu.
Jurnal Konstitusi
,
13
(3), 657–679.
https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1339
Tanah, A., & Susun, S. R. (2021).
Cipta perlu
.
086597
.
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik
Indonesia Tahun 1945
Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1960 Tentang
Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria
(Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Tahun 1960 Nomor 104, Tambahan
Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Nomor 2043)
Undang-Undang Nomor 51 Tahun 2009
Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang
Nomor 5 Tahun 1986 Tentang Pengadilan
Tata Usaha Negara (Lembaran Negara
Republik Indonesia Tahun 2009 Nomor
160, Tambahan Lembaran Negara
Republik Indonesia Nomor 5079)
Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008
tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik
(Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Tahun 2008 Nomor 61, Tambahan
Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Nomor 4846)
Winata, M. R., & Sinaga, E. M. C. (2019).
Transparansi Hak Guna Usaha Mendukung
Redistribusi Lahan Berdasarkan Hak
Konstitusional Mendapatkan Informasi.
Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan
Hukum Nasional
,
8
(3), 421. https://
doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v8i3.341
Juridical Implications Of The Supreme Court's Decision Number: 121 K/Tun/2017 On Disclosure Of Data Information Of
The Holder Right To Cultivate
Jurnal Notariil, 7 (1) 2022, 45
CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, Jurnal Notariil, ISSN 2540-797X, E-ISSSN 2615-1545
